Curse

FoxBat · Feb 23, 2007, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by elektra_lucia

Firstly, if you haven't seen a balanced build then you're blind.

Let me clarify.

Every time I hit observer for the hall of heroes last week, I never saw a balanced build there. Even after spikecount was removed from halls. I'm sure there were some playing through the lower maps. Maybe a few did make it to halls but they were rare.

Whenever someone brings up the overpowered 8v8 gimmicks like the old drunken stance/IWAY, the current discord spike, the answer isn't "play a good balanced build against them 8v8." The answer is "split." There was a time during factions when this might have been true, but NF has obliterated it and it will take many, many more balances to restore if that is even possible at this point.

Old 8v8 balanced holding relied on the SB/Infuse guy as a very important component on altar. There wasn't room for this in 6v6, so various gimmicks had to be invented to achieve the same goal. Even if we went back to old holding 8v8, I'm not sure it would work so well with song of conc / ward of stability in the game.

Ironically where is the highest % of balanced builds? TA, where you can't build a whole lot of gimmicky synergy with just 4.

DreamWind · Feb 23, 2007, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomway Ftw

Why do people always bitch about altars but fail to give real reasons why, is it that hard to accept the some people actualy enjoyed that type of map, and thought that it was unnecessary to remove it?

Because making HoH a holding altar would just move us from one annoying metagame to another. We would go from uber spike to uber holding. I still say make broken and courtyard holding again though, but not HoH itself.

I will try not to change topic of this thread, but I have to mention Iway real quick. Honestly I don't know why people put it down so much for this reason (which is on topic I might add): When Iway was around HA had the best metagame it has ever had in my opinion. Iway was the most common build that created a large HA population (which is good), but good balanced teams playing balanced builds were the best. Hell even spike was around but not OP.

Nearly every HA metagame since has been flawed by some degenerate OP builds. My point is that I think most people want to go back to old 8v8, but we don't want a crap metagame. That requires skill and map balances, not just a change in party size that this thread is asking for.

God Apprentice · Feb 23, 2007, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by elektra_lucia

That's a little thought to me, and a bit of team work and yes spike teams arn't hard to counter BUT in general teams DON'T have even ''little'' thought or a bit of teamwork. IWAY for most half decent people was -never- hard to counter but that's not the point. Iway was ALWAYS boring to counter, and too much of it.

It is not that the build was lame, it's that PEOPLE are lame. People can not think for themselves, and it's MUCH easier to make (if you're low rank/ability) a well known build that takes little skill than to risk using a build that is better to win with, but also easier to lose with.

With that in mind HA is ruined for the new comer. You don't have to make HA rubbish to suit the new comer either. HA should FORCE a player to think to be able to win, instead of all these stupid builds and stupid nonsense.

These kill counts are absoutely ridiculous. Everytime I've faced leeloofs team now, someone from the other team (not his or I) have PM'd me saying ''he doesn't need more fame let's gank him''. At first, I just wanted to win, so aslong as I wasn't the one ganked it was alright (lol) but the more I think about it, the game actually supporting ganking for those reasons is ridiculous.

I can understand ganking because they have a ghostly on altar, but ganking because they worked hard for fame? It's stupid.

So kill counts are stupid.

The event was alright, but what I don't get. The skills have been changed to suit 6vs6, the maps have been changed to suit 6vs6, and then you go change it back to 8vs8 to test?

Another thing which is stupid with 8vs8 and ''ganking''. If you face a team with 6 damage dealers, 2 monks instead of 5 and 3. It makes sense to attack them first because you'd expect them to be giving out more damage. Well, do that and you get 20 people from their alliance spamming you, raging at you for ''ganking''.

so I still stand by what I voted on (8vs8) but the maps need to be changed. Killcount needs to be changed or something (It'd be cool one team vs another, but not three teams).

Maybe have a limit to the ammount of spirits which can be up (just a thought, maybe not a good idea).

I still think having a limit to the ammount of same professions in a group. Might be worth testing.

Thank you

The harsh reality of HA is that the local chat is mostly PuG, and most of them are all running the exact same thing. No attempt at trying something new

Randomway Ftw · Feb 23, 2007, 01:53 AM // 01:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Because making HoH a holding altar would just move us from one annoying metagame to another. We would go from uber spike to uber holding. I still say make broken and courtyard holding again though, but not HoH itself.

Wrong, 8v8 before the 6v6 update did not have any uberholding builds, any build was able to be defeated, in fact the way people held in the old 8v8 was by chaining various interupts on claim resourse, and bodyblocking the ghostly hero, the type of builds had large amounts of interupts and moderate amounts of defense.

Popular builds included dual smite, dual migraine balanced, dual choking gas balanced, 7 spiker og spike, ooa iway (dying following eoe, and tf nerfs) vimway. Other builds sometimes seen include barrageway, rspike, other variations of bspike, triple smite, and different forms of balanced.

There have been periods when defensive builds were prevalent but those periods were short and ended with a skill balance, examples of these include pre nerf bloodspike (generaly overpowered because it was still quite effective at killing) and dual paragonway nerfed within weeks of being discovered, and nerfed several more times, because anet has at least realized their is a problem with paragons.

Now you see why when someone QQs about uberholding, I respond that holding builds are not a problem. Now you can see how anet "fixed" something that wasn't broken.

captainccc · Feb 23, 2007, 02:05 AM // 02:05

I stopped playing HA when it was switched to 6v6. No I didnt IWAY my brains out or blood spike, BUT I did have a lot more fun monking in 8v8 because its a man! I love the crazy-ness of 8v8, its similar to GvG but different in so many ways. Please bring it back Anet...please

vapor311 · Feb 23, 2007, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Apprentice

Thank you

The harsh reality of HA is that the local chat is mostly PuG, and most of them are all running the exact same thing. No attempt at trying something new

Why is that all the build Picasso's out there think that unless you're reinventing the wheel you're ruining the game by playing FoTM's? I don't really get it. There's a rather large genre of players who enjoy spending time actually playing the game, rather than coming up with oddball skill permutations and then spamming chat to find someone who can actually run what you came up with. Anything that gets more bodies playing the game rather than spamming all chat is a good thing at this point. While I wouldn't begrudge any player from playing the game in a manner that they thought was fun, that same consideration should be extended to the people who play in FoTM pugs.

2_fingers · Feb 23, 2007, 03:40 AM // 03:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Nearly every HA metagame since has been flawed by some degenerate OP builds. My point is that I think most people want to go back to old 8v8, but we don't want a crap metagame. That requires skill and map balances, not just a change in party size that this thread is asking for.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

I voted strongly prefer 8v8

Simply, bec the idea that 8v8 is only meant for GvG seems to be kinda flawed. GvG is a completely different meta, completely has completely different rules and objective. A lot of people assume that gvg and ha are the same - because they have 8 players each. Problem with this assumption is that HA is NOT the same as GvG and they are basically 2 different pvp modes completely. Perhaps the developers think of HA as a stepping stone to GvG. I think it is not so much as a stepping stone, but rather a completely different aspect of the game. If GvG was the same as HA, or rather a stepping stone, we could simply reduce the player number in GvGs to 6 as well.

Spike/or other Fotms (or even the hated iway)- they will always be there, but the thing about spike is that they revolve around 2 issues
1. Over powered skills that change the meta of the game
2. Simplicity. It is way simpler and easier to form a group, either PUG or group of friends if its a spike group, as the skills are the same. What this means is that you would have alot of spike groups - good and bad, so you just need to figure out how to counter the spike groups.

Give a few weeks with an 8v8 set, and you'd start to see all the counters coming out for spike builds. Its simply too myopic to expect the meta to change so fast - i.e. within the span of a weekend.

Going back to the issue of kill count and spikewars. I feel if you want to reduce the number of spike teams in HA, simply change some of the mechanics. Bring back the old school altar maps, but do include a specially designed kill count map or simply let one out of the 3 maps remain as a kill count map. Instead of making spike an extremely viable option because 3 critical maps rely on it, you make it merely a good option if you remove the importance on kill count. After all, with a kill count system one of the biggest issues is that you will lose and force alot of degen, presure and edenial builds out of the game.

I voted strongly, because i'm hoping anet would actually listen to alot of these posts and think about doing something serious about HA.

Bread Fan · Feb 23, 2007, 05:38 AM // 05:38

If any of you pro 6v6/anti spike people would read these forums it's not so much that 8v8 is the problem. The fact is the mechanics are flawed. Spikes are heavily favored because of kill count. Most of us enjoy playing 8v8 due to the creativity and balance in 8v8 but degen just does not work with kill count. So stop using that as an excuse.

Mental Leteci · Feb 23, 2007, 09:51 AM // 09:51

I still don't understand why people whine about holding builds. Hardly any team held longer than half an hour, maybe an hour at prime time. Now when there is song of concentration why would you whine? There are no seeking arrows rangers which you couldn't stop cause you weren't capable or PD mesmers cause your SB infuser was too stupid to put sb at the same time when stability is up etc. Sorry, but holding builds were usually shit cause they would try to HOLD. Since we all know how easy it is to kill a holding team in a regular 1v1 map it's even easier to kill them in 2v1 (HoH) if other team is smart enough to attack them and not the ghost only. So please, stop whining about altar maps, it makes no sense at all.

BlackEagle · Feb 23, 2007, 10:21 AM // 10:21

I voted Strongly Prefer 8v8. I tink 8v8 just allows more flexibility, and for me and least, was a lot more fun. I don't know what it is, but I just find 6v6 really boring compared to 8v8. For some reason also, in 8v8, I found that countering rit spike was far easier. Because, the way to beat spikes is to get them on the defence. Because if they're healing, they aren't spiking obv. So in 8v8, when you've got that extra offensive character, it can make countering spikes that bit easier. The thing is, that 8 rit spikers isn't necessary, 6 does enough to kill, so I don't think you can complain that 8v8 will lead to more spikes, as there are already plenty. I also like the new hoh system, because holding is boring. It's boring to play against, and it's boring to play, for me at least. How often now is a win in hoh flawless? With altar holding builds, flawless victories weren't that rare. Obviously, that doesn't really matter, but it illustrates a point, there is more diversity with the new system.

The thing is, everyone complains about the fotm being imbalanced or just annoying and requiring no skill. But, whatever size the arena, there will always be gimmicks. You will always have people that find a set of 48 or 64 skils which synergies well together and takes to skill to run. But, in 8v8, you have those 16 extra skills to counter these gimmicks.

pigfister · Feb 23, 2007, 10:34 AM // 10:34

having played in both ranked(r9+) groups and pug groups throughout the 8v8 trial, it is a lot harder for new players to win against a strong team. before the trial i strongly wanted 8v8 back but now after seeing the results 6v6 is my new opinion as new players have no chance what so ever against an 8v8 spike team, which obviously was run throughout the trial (every other team was either rit spike, euro spike, or para way spike. btw all high ranked guilds or groups). all the high ranking guilds that in 6v6 you stood a chance against before, were unbeatable throughout the trial. i believe that 6v6 is a better balance for hero's ascent, but for high ranked groups 8v8 is unbeatable pownage fame farm.

God Apprentice · Feb 23, 2007, 11:38 AM // 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by vapor311

Why is that all the build Picasso's out there think that unless you're reinventing the wheel you're ruining the game by playing FoTM's? I don't really get it. There's a rather large genre of players who enjoy spending time actually playing the game, rather than coming up with oddball skill permutations and then spamming chat to find someone who can actually run what you came up with. Anything that gets more bodies playing the game rather than spamming all chat is a good thing at this point. While I wouldn't begrudge any player from playing the game in a manner that they thought was fun, that same consideration should be extended to the people who play in FoTM pugs.

That's good and all, but really after a while playing in/against the same thing might not keep ones interest

Oh and I didn't say running FotM builds ruins the game.

tomcruisejr · Feb 23, 2007, 11:51 AM // 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mental Leteci

I still don't understand why people whine about holding builds. Hardly any team held longer than half an hour, maybe an hour at prime time.

say you're destined to win 40 times in 1 run. that means you'll gonna win 32 times in HoH. and in old school ha, that means you have to win 32 more times by altar holding, ghostly capping or whatever your tactic is. that means 32 more times doing the same thing. and say you want to win. will you run a build that has higher probability of winning 32 times? what kind of build is that?

where as the new system now, variable objectives (altar capping included). so that means you have to design a build that can win HoH 32 times doing different things. and see, your competitors arent forced to tailor their build for just doing a specific job.

back to your question, maybe people think that holding is old and it sucks?

God Apprentice · Feb 23, 2007, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

say you're destined to win 40 times in 1 run. that means you'll gonna win 32 times in HoH. and in old school ha, that means you have to win 32 more times by altar holding, ghostly capping or whatever your tactic is. that means 32 more times doing the same thing. and say you want to win. will you run a build that has higher probability of winning 32 times? what kind of build is that?

where as the new system now, variable objectives (altar capping included). so that means you have to design a build that can win HoH 32 times doing different things. and see, your competitors arent forced to tailor their build for just doing a specific job.

back to your question, maybe people think that holding is old and it sucks?

Well that is a good point Syra, since objectives rotate, builds shouldn't be strictly tailored for one play type. Still this is all still a bit new, so perhaps ANet hopes to garner more creativity in the builds run in HA. Maybe time will tell?

tomcruisejr · Feb 23, 2007, 12:15 PM // 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by God Apprentice

Well that is a good point Syra, since objectives rotate, builds shouldn't be strictly tailored for one play type. Still this is all still a bit new, so perhaps ANet hopes to garner more creativity in the builds run in HA. Maybe time will tell?

the new hoh objectives are still.. new..let's give it half to one year more and the old system won't be remembered.

Bastian · Feb 23, 2007, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by vapor311

Why is that all the build Picasso's out there think that unless you're reinventing the wheel you're ruining the game by playing FoTM's? I don't really get it. There's a rather large genre of players who enjoy spending time actually playing the game, rather than coming up with oddball skill permutations and then spamming chat to find someone who can actually run what you came up with. Anything that gets more bodies playing the game rather than spamming all chat is a good thing at this point. While I wouldn't begrudge any player from playing the game in a manner that they thought was fun, that same consideration should be extended to the people who play in FoTM pugs.

FoTM's are probably one of the best things for HA. It allows newer players to get into a group and get fame - thereby getting them the experience in HA and the faction to unlock new skills. The sad thing about HA, and part of the reason I don't consider rank to be a judgement of skill, is because a lot of people use the FoTM's as a crutch, in some cases even until r9. Sure, they may try to run something different, something more balanced. But, inevitably they will not get the same fame as they try to get better - so they revert back to whatever build they are used to. This is especially why 8v8 should see a return. Because good balanced > good FoTM. Of course, this is under conditions that exclude bad mechanics such as kill count, etc, etc...

basti91 · Feb 23, 2007, 02:46 PM // 14:46

I'm strongly for 8vs8 because I didn't like 6vs6. There's not enough flexibility inside your party, only 6x8 skills e.g. .
I know, many poeple said: "8vs8 is too heavy!", but I think, it isn't. Your opponents are heavy, but you can be heavy, too.

Thom Bangalter · Feb 23, 2007, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomway Ftw

That is poor play because????? By that logic I could say using a flag runner in GvG is poor play.

Things that are bad: fertile season, healing seed, symbiosis, choking gas, seeking arrows.

things that are good: flexible characters that can capture the flagstand, provide movement control, and can respond to threats on a field.

Rotating seeds on ghostly=not fun.

crazyman209 · Feb 23, 2007, 03:09 PM // 15:09

I hate 8v8 it is hard enough to get a good group. Every time my team played 8v8 we had to take pugs or noobs that killed our team. I think that the people who dont like 6v6 are thoes that cant play multiple rolls. ie. a spiker and healer.

axe · Feb 23, 2007, 03:16 PM // 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyman209

I think that the people who dont like 6v6 are thoes that cant play multiple rolls. ie. a spiker and healer.

This is truly hilarious on so many levels.